A new report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Agriculture from the National Research Council - part of the U.S.'s National Academies (of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine) warns of what it calls serious ecological risks of some GM plants and animals. More on the report here: http://www4.nas.edu/cp.nsf/Projects+_by+_PIN/BLSX-K-01-10-A?OpenDocument

---

Genes Run Wild
http://www.sciencentral.com/

A report today from the National Research Council warns of what it calls serious ecological risks of some genetically modified plants and animals.

As this ScienCentral News video reports, it says there is no 100 percent effective way to prevent some introduced genes from running out of control in the wild. [see video at http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?language=english&type=article &article_id=218392157]

Bioconfinement

When the nation's first genetically modified pet, the GloFish, recently came on the market, it caused more than a small ripple in the scientific ocean.  The fish glow under ultra-violet light because scientists gave them a gene from an entirely different species, sea coral. Experts say these "transgenic" organisms are less fit than their wild relatives, so they'd likely pose no threat to the environment if they got away. But there are organisms that are given genes that might increase their fitness, such as genetically modified salmon that grow faster than normal. Would they compete with their natural cousins? Do they pose any danger? These are questions some scientists have been wondering about since genetically engineered organisms, or GEOs, were first introduced into the environment nearly 20 years ago.

A January 20, 2004 report from the National Research Council of the National Academies, commissioned by the USDA National Biological Risk Assessment Program, which is considering how it should regulate genetically modified plants and animals, states that for some GEOs, including modified plants , insects, microbes and animals, "the ecological consequences" of their escape or release "could be serious." The report, "Biological Confinement of Genetically Modified Organisms, " recommends that regulatory agencies require, and enforce, what it calls "bioconfinement" on a case-by-case basis. It says, "the evaluation of whether and how to confine a GEO should be an integral part of its development, and the need for bioconfinement should be considered early in the process."

There are many different methods of bioconfinement, such as making genetically engineered plants and animals unable to reproduce. "One way is like fighting fire with fire," says William Muir, professor of animal sciences at Purdue University. "We will use the transgenic technology to actually introduce genes that make the organism sterile. If the transgenic organisms are sterile they can't pass their genes on and if they can't pass their genes on then they cannot persist in the environment." For example, Muir's lab engineers fish to be sterile, unless they are fed certain hormones during breeding. "If it got loose, it could not get these compounds in the wild and therefore it would always remain infertile," Muir says.

The report also says that "it is unlikely that any single bioconfinement technique will be completely effective," which means that fail-safe backups would be necessary. "You can stack these genes one behind the other in case one fails—a new mutation comes along and it becomes fertile—you have a backup gene that stops it," says Muir. "So we can actually use this technology to greatly reduce risks."

Muir hopes that using genetic engineering to make genetic engineering safer will spur more public acceptance of its products. But the report concludes that bolstering public confidence will come with the success of confinement methods that are developed as a result of more research, because the current lack of data limits proper assessment of current methods.

Go to a Print friendly Page

Email this Article to a Friend

Back to the Archive